Page 3641 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

legislation and will instead continue to have informal blacklists about which tenants they do and do not wish to lease to. That will defeat the whole purpose of the reform.

For this reason, the government cannot support the amendments foreshadowed by Mr Rattenbury. Indeed, we believe that they so critically undermine the operation of the proposed reform that if it is the view, as indicated by Mrs Dunne, that the opposition will support these amendments, the government will be seeking an adjournment of this debate following agreement in principle so that further discussions can be had.

I am not comfortable with last-minute amendments being put on the table in the last 12 hours or so and having to deal with amendments which could critically undermine the operation of this important reform. I would rather there was the opportunity for further discussion between parties on the matter. It is regrettable that we have these last-minute amendments, particularly given the extensive consultation process and time—over eight months of time—that has been afforded to all stakeholders in relation to the final model uniform provisions. But that said, I think it is preferable to passing amendments which would cause fundamental problems in the operation of the bill once passed.

That said, I would like to thank members for their support of the bill in principle. In the government’s view, it strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of tenants and lessors. It recognises that there is a role for tenancy databases as a legitimate risk minimisation tool for lessors and agents whilst also ensuring that only the most serious breaches of tenancy agreements are listed and that those listings are accurate, complete and unambiguous. I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Clause 1.

Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell) adjourned to a later hour.

Sitting suspended from 10.59 to 2 pm.

Questions without notice

Planning—alleged interference

MR SESELJA: My question is to the Deputy Chief Minister. Minister, documents obtained by the opposition show that the chief planner, Neil Savery, stood aside from considering the Giralang supermarket development just days after highlighting improper interference in the process. Why was Mr Savery forced to stand aside?

MR BARR: He was not.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, a supplementary.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video